supersonic no more

[peekay4]

Beginnings of a new supersonic era?

REUTERS -- Nov 17 Flexjet said it ordered 20 of Aerion Corp's AS2 supersonic business jets, which will make the private jet travel firm the first to offer publically available supersonic transport since the Concorde was grounded in 2003.

AS2, a three-engine jet that can carry eight to 12 passengers, is being developed by Aerion in collaboration with Airbus Group. It is expected to make its maiden flight in 2021 and enter service in 2023.

Notably, if the Aerion AS2 flies at Mach 1.2 at or above FL350, its sonic boom will not reach the ground -- possibly allowing supersonic flights within the continental US and Europe, in addition to oceanic flights and regions with no supersonic restrictions (notably China).

Read more at Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/17/flexjet-orders-aerion-idUSL3N13C5HT20151117)

[ATC Watcher]

if the Aerion AS2 flies at Mach 1.2 at or above FL350, its sonic boom will not reach the ground

Can someone with more theorical knowledge than I do explains this ?

I also fail to see the interest to fly at M1.2 compared to a Citation X at M.9 at 1/5 th of the price.

[cubemaster]

A simple explanation of why the sonic boom does not reach the ground when at Mach 1.2 above FL350 is found here:
Quiet Supersonic - NASA Chases Fleeting Booms | Things With Wings (http://aviationweek.com/blog/quiet-supersonic-nasa-chases-fleeting-booms)

Cubemaster

[ATC Watcher]

Thanks cubemaster. very interesting , we'll see if those "evanescent waves" are acceptable or not to people on the ground , but the schema in the article raise another question : would the reflected wave be perceided by following aircraft flying behind/below ?

[PAX_Britannica]

I also fail to see the interest to fly at M1.2 compared to a Citation X at M.9 at 1/5 th of the price.
It's supposed to cruise at M1.4-M1.5 over water. Still not quite Concorde, though.

[PAX_Britannica]

A simple explanation of why the sonic boom does not reach the ground when at Mach 1.2 above FL350 is found here:
Quiet Supersonic - NASA Chases Fleeting Booms | Things With Wings (http://aviationweek.com/blog/quiet-supersonic-nasa-chases-fleeting-booms)


Maybe a Tech Log question, but is there a good (technical) reason why Concorde couldn't have done that ?

[AreOut]

"It's supposed to cruise at M1.4-M1.5 over water. Still not quite Concorde, though."

it would still spare an hour or two on transoceanic flights, in business world that might be worthwhile

[procede]

Smells like a PR stunt to me. Mach 1.2-1.5 has huge transonic drag and the massive additional fuel consumption will eat away you range, which is not worth the marginal overall speed increase. At least not for a significant number of aircraft to make the development costs break even.

[Private jet]

I wondered when this old chestnut would come around again. Massive airships and personal jet packs will be back again sometime as well....:ugh:

[peekay4]

Mach 1.2-1.5 has huge transonic drag and the massive additional fuel consumption will eat away you range, which is not worth the marginal overall speed increase.
Aerion AS2 will be the first production aircraft to employ a Supersonic Natural Laminar Flow (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/Features/sblt_phase_2.html) wing, after apparently successful tests with NASA demonstrating an SNLF airfoil at high Reynold numbers suitable for a commercial jet.

A laminar flow wing significantly reduces drag, up to 90% reduction compared to current supersonic wings. The reduction in total drag (including other parts of the aircraft) is more modest -- predicted to be around 20% -- but that's enough to make supersonic flight economical.

Aerion's airfoil was able to simultaneously maintain laminar flow while shaping the sonic boom to enable quiet flight.

[Ian W]

I also fail to see the interest to fly at M1.2 compared to a Citation X at M.9 at 1/5 th of the price.

If the 12 people that you are flying are paid in the order of $10,000 an hour or more, then the sums may well add up for the companies using seats on such a biz jet as a journey need not take a full working day out. Add continual Internet over SATCOM so work can be done during flight.

You can be sure that the beancounters will have worked out the comparative costs of travel by different means, including down time while traveling.

[c52]

What might be in the rear half (approximately) of the fuselage? - just something to hang the wings and engines on?

[peekay4]

With AS2 an executive might have morning meetings in New York, then head to London to sign a deal, then make it back to New York in time for dinner & daughter's piano recital that evening.

When you're a billionaire, why not?

[ExDubai]

I know about a couple of people which are looking into a A340 Private Jet. O.K the aircraft is rather cheap, but the cost for conversion and the tco :} or think about what people are willing to paar for the Gulfstream G650
From my point of view the market is there.

[Tourist]

Also, whilst there are a couple of jets that cruise at 0.9+, how many actually do it more than once after they see the fuel consumption?

The current "fast" jets are mostly top trump machines themselves.

[tdracer]

There are a fair number of "cost is no object" people out there - Boeing has delivered over 200 Boeing Business Jets (including seven 777, nine 787, and eight 747-8) and the cost of the custom interiors is typically similar to the cost of the airframe.
It's long been speculated that the next supersonic passenger aircraft would be a business jet - this would seem to confirm that.
All that being said, I'll believe it when I see it. There are some major regulatory challenges (today's regulations are far removed from what Concorde was certified to), and the greenies will certainly have a hissy fit over the environmental impact and carbon footprint of a supersonic toy.

[KenV]

Every time I see a picture of the Aerion AS2 I think "Douglas X-3 Stilletto". The Stilleto configuration (long skinny fuselage with high polar moments and really short wings) had severe inertial coupling problems at high speeds. Joe Walker barely survived an inertial coupling episode in the X-3. How is Aerion overcoming this problem which is inherent to that configuration?

As the Air and Space Smithonian website says:
Every research aircraft poses a question. Sometimes the answer is "forget it."

The X-3 Stiletto | Air & Space Magazine (http://www.airspacemag.com/videos/category/space-exploration/the-x-3-stiletto/?no-ist)

http://www.themanufacturer.com/wp-content/gallery/aerion/A-top-shot-of-the-Aerion-AS2-design.jpg
http://www.diseno-art.com/news_content/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Douglas-X-3-Stiletto-6.jpg

[G-CPTN]

Then there was the Lockheed Starfighter.

[Feathers McGraw]

We've had unstable aircraft with computer-controlled control surfaces for over 40 years, the inherent inertia coupling tendencies will be controlled by that same philosophy.

The X-3 was designed in the late 40s/early 50s and hence couldn't benefit from small lightweight digital computers because they were not developed until 15 or more years later.

Just read the remainder of the X-3 Wikipedia article. Quite sobering. 260kt take-off speed and +/-7g roll-coupled pitch oscillations on the flight where Joe Walker nearly lost control.

[n5296s]

The Aerion is real enough - a friend of mine, one of my instructors, is a senior engineer on the project. Lots of interesting stories... (not to be repeated here I'm afraid).

[peekay4]

How is Aerion overcoming this problem which is inherent to that configuration?
A few years before the X-3 even flew, a NACA engineer by the name of William Phillips had theorized the possibly of inertial roll coupling, provided precise mathematical equations of the phenomenon, and even devised solutions to the problem if it were ever to occur in practice (which of course it did).

I believe part of the solution is to increase pitch and yaw stability by having a larger tail. Stability augmentation (similar to a yaw damper) can also be used.

[tdracer]

The Aerion is real enough - a friend of mine, one of my instructors, is a senior engineer on the project. Lots of interesting stories... (not to be repeated here I'm afraid).

Don't misunderstand my skepticism. I have no doubt that Aerion is working on this project. What I question is if it will ultimately result in a certified commercial product.
There have been a lot of new aircraft projects that failed to make it past the prototype phase (many didn't even make it that far - including the Boeing SST). The cost and regulatory challenges to a supersonic commercial aircraft are massive. As I've noted the changes to the FAR and JAR/CS since the 1970s will make it incredibly difficult to certify a supersonic capable bis jet.

[G-CPTN]

The company claims 50 letters-of-intent from customers, each with a $250,000 deposit.

[KenV]

We've had unstable aircraft with computer-controlled control surfaces for over 40 years, the inherent inertia coupling tendencies will be controlled by that same philosophy.This is not the same as aerodynamic instability. This is an inertial instability. It is caused by forces of a rotating mass overpowering the forces of an aerodynamic surface. No amount of computer sophistication can overcome this instability. The aerodynamic control surfaces must be enlarged. Further, look at any relaxed stability aircraft and you will see large control surfaces. Software alone cannot generate the large forces required to maintain control. The software needs powerful control surfaces to work with. Those do not appear to be present on the Aerion AS2.

[KenV]

Then there was the Lockheed Starfighter.

Indeed. The Starfighter's wing is (roughly) based on the X-3's wing. Lockheed learned much from the X-3 so that the Starfighter had MUCH larger tail surfaces than the X-3 AND it had a ventral strake for additional aero authority. All this appears to be absent on the Aerion AS2.

[megan]

It is generally recognised that coupling can be ameliorated by,

1. increased directional stability
2. reducing dihedral effect
3. minimising the inclination of the inertia axis at normal flight conditions
4. reducing undesirable aerodynamic coupling
5. limiting roll rate, roll duration, and angle of attack or load factor for performing roll manoeuvres

The typical high speed aircraft has some sort of roll performance limitation by flight restrictions or automatic control device to prevent reaching some critical condition from which recovery is impossible.

I can't think of any manoeuvre on an aircraft such as this where coupling could be an issue, and assume modern flight control computer systems would look after point (5). They won't be doing twinkle rolls. With Airbus part of the team, whatever is the product produced I'm sure you could take it to the bank.

[underfire]

http://i66.tinypic.com/ohntr8.jpg

[pax britanica]

Well if cost is no object and these people are so incredible important they won't have any problem with a 100% VAT paid at the location of manufacture (not some rinky dinky modern day pirate haven place of registration) will they?

No one is that important, although some people might think they are; if Putin and Obama can make do with subsonics and telecoms links so can they.

On a less bitter note, it looks like it might be a bit of a hot ship to handle at low speed, would it be able to get into Citation sized airfields.

[dcoded]

The future will tell what will become of this project.
Seem interesting though and I wish all the luck for those involved.
But I couldn't help myself posting this little picture. I Think that some of you will get it and maybe laugh a little!

https://33.media.tumblr.com/391a79e2d632fc20b84df7aa208093cb/tumblr_inline_mflugqFMtC1r8g16e.jpg

:8

Edit: Type-o

[llondel]

On a less bitter note, it looks like it might be a bit of a hot ship to handle at low speed, would it be able to get into Citation sized airfields.

You can always get an aircraft onto a landing field. Whether it's in a condition to fly out again is another matter.

What sort of altitude are they planning to fly this thing? Concorde was pretty much on its own up at FL600 where it didn't have to worry about other traffic, I'm guessing this will be flying lower

[peekay4]

Yes the faster you go, the higher you need to fly.

Since the AS2 won't fly as fast as the Concorde, its optimal altitude should be closer to FL450, with service ceiling around FL510.

[KenV]

Well if cost is no object and these people are so incredible important they won't have any problem with a 100% VAT paid at the location of manufacture

Predatory taxation is usually counter productive. When they raised the excise (luxury) tax on yachts here in the US, they stopped producing them here and many thousands of jobs were lost. When they raised taxes on and demonized those who flew in biz jets, many thousands of jobs were lost. The politics of envy are not only ugly, they are self defeating.

[space-shuttle-driver]

Yes the faster you go, the higher you need to fly.

.

What you say does not hold for supersonic flight.
i) The speed of sound is a function of air temperature ONLY.
ii) Temperature remains constant from the beginning of the stratosphere up to 65000 feet, after which the temperature increases again.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Being higher, at fixed IMN, will reduce sigma, which will increase the difference between TAS and EAS. In the fixed temperature region of the stratosphere then, the higher you are, whilst TAS will stay fixed, EAS will go down, reducing aerodynamic loads on the aircraft, and potentially drag and thus fuel burn required.

So the higher the better, so long as it stays within the lower stratosphere, and there may be some value in creeping into the middle stratosphere a bit.

I think, it's late, might come back and check my maths in the morning.

G

[con-pilot]

Well if cost is no object and these people are so incredible important they won't have any problem with a 100% VAT paid at the location of manufacture

Then the manufacturer will move the location to a country that does not have such crippling taxes.

It's a big world.

[peekay4]

What you say does not hold for supersonic flight.
In supersonic flight, lift-dependent wave drag increases rapidly with Mach speed (by M^2), while some other drag components decrease with altitude. So the faster you go, the higher you need to fly to minimize drag.

[megan]

Aerion make no mention that I can see of planned altitude capability, though they mention approach speeds will be less than 135 Knots.

An interesting paper on inertia coupling, X-2, X-15 and Space Shuttle

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88484main_H-2106.pdf

[poorjohn]

This is not the same as aerodynamic instability. This is an inertial instability. It is caused by forces of a rotating mass overpowering the forces of an aerodynamic surface. No amount of computer sophistication can overcome this instability. The aerodynamic control surfaces must be enlarged. Further, look at any relaxed stability aircraft and you will see large control surfaces. Software alone cannot generate the large forces required to maintain control. The software needs powerful control surfaces to work with. Those do not appear to be present on the Aerion AS2.
I suppose great minds have considered thrusters of some kind to augment aerodynamic controls, and that doesn't work?

[MG23]

I suppose great minds have considered thrusters of some kind to augment aerodynamic controls, and that doesn't work?

The fuel would probably weigh more than bigger control surfaces, and would require more maintenance to keep the thrusters working.

If I remember correctly, one of the first warnings the Columbia crew had of impending doom was the low fuel level in the thrusters that were compensating for a molten wing.

[megan]

For those questioning the economics, not what you would call overwhelming though.

Supersonic Bizjet Math Makes Sense Now, Says Analyst | Business Aviation News: Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2015-11-19/supersonic-bizjet-math-makes-sense-now-says-analyst)
No amount of computer sophistication can overcome this instabilityYou can by not allowing the aircraft to encroach the areas where the instability will manifest itself. Think envelope protection, as used in the Airbus. As I previously posted,coupling can be ameliorated by limiting roll rate, roll duration, and angle of attack or load factor for performing roll manoeuvres

The typical high speed aircraft has some sort of roll performance limitation by flight restrictions or automatic control device to prevent reaching some critical condition from which recovery is impossible.In essence, it's not a lot different to the relaxed stability aircraft we have now. A less stable aircraft requires smaller control surfaces, and deflections, to initiate maneuvering; consequently drag and control surface imposed stresses will be reduced and aircraft responsiveness will be enhanced. Since these characteristics will typically make control by the pilot difficult or impossible, an artificial stability will typically be imposed using computers, servos, and sensors as parts of a fly by wire control system.

[rak64]

That is a theoretical view. First the aircraft need an acceptable approach speed, a reasonable runway performance, and climb performance. If not happy wings has to extended. (Same story for the Concorde.) The Aerion seems made just for fulfill that conditions. I guess it will be a low runway-performer, not good for a business aircraft, build for stability and safety.
Usually are constructed after the engines. Aerion is opposite. They changed the engine already. A successful supersonic aircraft need to solve the engine problem first. Let me give some figures at FL650 M0.92 is about 155KIAS. AtFL800 M3.0 is about KIAS250. A nicely constructed aircraft(like wingsonly acft) can maintain a L/D of 40.

[pax britanica]

Well we are not talking the politics of envy here, I didn't decry biz jets as a whole but this is just ridiculous although an interesting exercise. Adding a huge VAT rating would in theory make no difference because apparently 'these are people for whom money is no object' so if that's the case and they want the plane that badly they can pay an 'enhanced price for it'. They might even like the idea as it makes them more exclusive.

[wingspan68]

I'm a triple engine flyer, but I really wouldn't fly this thing, even my boss would double the salary... :=:=:=

[KenV]

Adding a huge VAT rating would in theory make no difference because apparently 'these are people for whom money is no object' so if that's the case and they want the plane that badly they can pay an 'enhanced price for it'.

With all due respect, when "theory" meets reality, the manufacturer will build the thing where the taxes are not predatory, and the countries with the predatory taxes will not only get zero tax revenue, but will lose a good number of high wage jobs. The politics of envy are almost always self defeating.

[OFBSLF]

Also, whilst there are a couple of jets that cruise at 0.9+, how many actually do it more than once after they see the fuel consumption?

I suspect that those who can afford a $70M G650, plus salary for pilots and cabin crew, don't bat an eye at the price tag for the fuel.

[G-CPTN]

Fuel consumption will restrict range.

[peekay4]

The AS2 is designed to fly 4,750nm at Mach 1.4 or 5,300nm at Mach 0.95. That's plenty of range for the planned mission profiles.

Flexjet is primarily a fractional-ownership company, and a big percentage of their client base are corporations (vs. individual customers). They can place these jets on coastal hubs and offer their customers supersonic transatlantic and transpacific flights -- NYC to London, Paris or even Moscow; SFO to Tokyo, etc.

For these corporations, the flights could be considered a deductible business expense. With oil prices forecasted to remain low, I'm sure they can work out the economics.

Having said that, Aerion is majority-owned by a billionaire, and I'm sure he and his buddies are looking forward to jetting around the world at supersonic speeds.

[pax britanica]

Ken V

The politics of envy (altho I have no desire to own a machine like this much as I love aircraft, so envy doesn't come into it) are almost always self defeating, but there is one little word in there you seem to have overlooked-'almost'.

And I think this is one of the cases where it isnt. It cannot be manufactured anywhere except USA France and Germany , possibly UK .

it will be hugely expensive and portrayed as a horrendous environmental harm device making it unlikely any public corporations would buy it .

It can easily be distinguished from any other business jet so a different tax rate can easily be applied .

Governments always like to slap down uppity rich people when they get the chance -which isnt often because mega rich people have a lot of influence but no one will buy the story in this case

It might cost a few jobs but only a few and anyone working on this project would have to be pretty special because of the technology and can easily get work elsewhere.

So I am not playing the politics of envy just saying this is one of those occasional steps too far

[Astra driver]

Having worked for several "High net worth individuals" for many years now I can tell you the economics of this will work. There are no shortage of individuals willing to pony up $120 million for a Supersonic biz jet, it's as much a matter of prestige as it is about time savings. A friend of mine who flies for a wealthy Saudi family recently told me that the principal had a just bought a new 777 for his wife to use on shopping trips because the 767 they had was too small!

As far as fuel economy goes; it just gets better with each new generation of jets, the G650 I currently fly burns the same fuel at M.87 as the G550 burned at M.84, although we almost always cruise at M.90, in fact in the past 2 years I've only made a handful of trips at less than Mach.9 and at that speed I still get better fuel burn than I did in the Gulfstream III at Mach.80

[peekay4]

Governments always like to slap down uppity rich people when they get the chance -which isnt often because mega rich people have a lot of influence but no one will buy the story in this case
That's certainly not the general view in North America and most of the world... and maybe not even in Europe, noting that Airbus recently strengthened their partnership with Aerion to design the AS2.

Aerion is currently looking to build a new manufacturing facility, presumably somewhere in the US. They will receive full support from the local, state and federal governments to build supersonic business jets -- likely including significant tax breaks.

[Chris the Robot]

Will be interesting to see if any of the airlines take an interest in this and try and persuade Aerion to increase the size of the passenger cabin. BA of course have A318s that seat 32 passengers and do London City-JFK (via Shannon westbound). Would any airline attempt to use an enlarged AS2 for a similar service I wonder?

[peekay4]

It's very difficult to design a quiet supersonic aircraft that's also fuel efficient.

The AS2 will carry max. 12 passengers yet it is nearly as long as a Boeing 767, with a very thin and long fuselage.

This type of design might scale up a bit, to around 20 passengers, but going beyond that will require many new technological breakthroughs.

A decade ago NASA outlined some goals for a "next next generation" (N+2) quiet supersonic aircraft capable of carrying 35 to 70 passengers at Mach 1.8 and a 4,000nm range.

The idea was to spur research and development activities for new technologies required for such an aircraft by 2020, and to enable an even more advanced N+3 supersonic airliner with up to 200 passengers by 2035.

However, analysis led by Boeing and partners a few years ago concluded that it is unlikely we will have the technology for N+2 by 2020. Indeed we will be lucky if the Aerion AS2 (considered an N+1 aircraft) or a competitor actually enters into service by 2023.

So for right now, only business-jet sized aircraft looks realistic given the environmental constraints.

[KenV]

Ken V The politics of envy (altho I have no desire to own a machine like this much as I love aircraft, so envy doesn't come into it) are almost always self defeating, but there is one little word in there you seem to have overlooked-'almost'.

This will be my last reply on this topic as I do not wish to get sucked into back and forth bickering. That being said, the desire to use predatory taxes to punish people because they are very rich and can afford things you can't even dream of is the very definition of the politics of envy.

To put this in perspective, while there is considerable pressure here in the USA to engage in predatory taxation, it remains a minority position and fortunately is generally frowned upon. Here in the USA not only is it unlikely predatory taxes will be applied to this project, but it is highly likely that local communities will offer tax breaks and other incentives to attract the manufacturer to their community. If you doubt that consider Virgin Galactic, founded and funded by a BRITISH guy, but operating in the USA. Only the very rich will be able to afford to take a ride in Branson's private space ship, and several states/cities in the USA competed and offered various INCENTIVES to have that space ship built and/or operated in their community.

Now, about this statement:
It might cost a few jobs but only a few and anyone working on this project would have to be pretty special because of the technology and can easily get work elsewhere.

The above statement is an acknowledgement that predatory taxation moves such high paying specialist jobs to another community. The point being missed is that as good as high paying jobs are for individuals, those jobs are even better for the community where those jobs are located. Just as important, the community is improved by having people with "pretty special" skills live there. You can't see that pushing those people and those jobs elsewhere is self defeating? If a community keeps that up, pretty soon that community will look like a typical coal mining town: dirty and depressed. It is self defeating. Do it at a national level, and the nation starts looking like a coal town. Sound familiar?

[TURIN]

If you doubt that consider Virgin Galactic, founded and funded by a BRITISH guy, but operating in the USA. Only the very rich will be able to afford to take a ride in Branson's private space ship, and several states/cities in the USA competed and offered various INCENTIVES to have that space ship built and/or operated in their community.

Yes, one of these incentives being a dirty great unpopulated desert! :E

[pax britanica]

Ken V

No need to respond because although we have disagreed unlike many on here we have discussed our points ina civilised manner . I certainly dont think you have been discourteous or rude in anyway to me personally and hope you feel the same.
Perhaps one thing where our countries are bit different is humour and especially sarcasm and I confess to being a fairly sarcastic individual at times .
All i would say if money is no object then why not take advantage of that and raise a bit of public money for hospitals road airports etc that the mega rich don't really use in the same way as the rest of us . In my view a supersonic bizjet is a step too far but I have no problem with business aviation in general and indeed recently enjoyed a tour round one of the worlds very best business airports just down the road from me

The owners keep the field in prisitine condition from an environmental aspect and go over and above regulatory requirements in this respect . They try very hard to be good neighbours and contribute significantly to the local community through charitable work and economy by employing a lot of people plus a large degree of indirect benefit via hotels catering etc etc etc. They are a private company owned by two very very wealthy men but they do things the right way.
Anyway lets call an end to it for there and agree to differ and I wish you and yours a happy Thanksgiving holiday. PB

[_Phoenix]

For all business jet owners, the money is not a problem, simply because it's the most expensive and inefficient way of traveling, but actually this is the scope - to show off! I can afford this luxury, I own the most luxurious, the larger or the fastest business jet and always money will attract money.

[peekay4]

There are many reasons for business jet ownership (or private aircraft ownership in general) other than to "show off".

Convenience, flexibility, and privacy, to name a few. Also many business jet owners are pilots themselves. Many enjoy the personalized service -- flying with the same friendly crew for years.

One of the first companies I worked for did a lot of business in remote areas in a different state, not served by any airline nearby. Our CEO often flew the company plane himself for meetings, site inspections, etc. I've flown right seat a couple of times.

Much more convenient and efficient than two days in a car each time. And time does equal money.

[fdcg27]

Nobody actually needs to fly an aircraft like this and any justification offered for it must sound fatuous.
Still, it's interesting to think that such an aircraft might actually come to exist and enter service.
I would be fun to spot for these at the major airports, with plenty of commercial service, from which this type would inevitably operate.
If I could afford the thing, or get someone else to pay for it, like the shareholders, I'd not mind having one myself.
The technical development that this aircraft would represent is a precursor of things to come, like a future Mach 2+ commercial Pacific-crosser.

[AreOut]

" like a future Mach 2+ commercial Pacific-crosser."

you mean Concorde? :)

[tdracer]

you mean Concorde? :)
Concorde didn't have trans-Pacific supersonic range (at least not without stopping to refuel, which sort of defeats the purpose :rolleyes:).

[AreOut]

ah right :)

[His dudeness]

For all business jet owners, the money is not a problem, simply because it's the most expensive and inefficient way of traveling


"My" businessjet is owned by a corporation and "they" (the board) consider it very efficient. We do things you simply can´t with airlines in a certain time frame. We go places where no airline flies to. And our our homebase has 2 daily connections to the capital and thats it.

They consider it also as expensive.

[jolihokistix]

Just been watching the tail-end of a Japanese TV programme explaining the most recent results of tests they did on their joint JAXA/Swedish supersonic plane.
The Japanese Space Agency Tested a Supersonic Plane With Less Sonic Boom | Motherboard (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-japanese-space-agency-just-tested-a-supersonic-plane-with-less-sonic-boom)


Their main discovery was the sonic boom created by the aircraft's profile is roughly 1/4 that of Concorde.


To get the public to understand this concept, they said, imagine the clap of thunder that accompanies a very close flash of lightning. That would be the Concorde sonic boom. Then imagine the same flash of lightning some distance away and the resultant rumble of thunder, approximating the relative sound from JAXA's test frame.


Some footage of their testing concepts here, but no sound?
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=JAXA+%e8%b6%85%e9%9f%b3%e9%80%9f%e6%a9%9f&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=252A939879D939AD2767252A939879D939AD2767

[G-CPTN]

Their main discovery was the sonic boom created by the aircraft's profile is roughly 1/4 that of Concorde.
But, isn't their test vehicle much, much, smaller?

[jolihokistix]

For the equivalent size, perhaps?

[Quartz-1]

Since this is made by Airbus and not an American company, you can expect a repeat of Concorde and Boeing et al to prevent its entry to America.

[peekay4]

Aerion is an American company, led by a Texas billionaire, and based in Reno, Nevada. The AS2 final assembly will be in a new US manufacturing facility (location to be announced next year).

Airbus is collaborating via its US-based subsidiary, Airbus Group Inc., headquartered in McNair, Virginia.

[DH_call]

Since this is made by Airbus and not an American company, you can expect a repeat of Concorde and Boeing et al to prevent its entry to America.

That's right, blame the lack of sales to conspiracy by it's intended customers. Not on it's most obvious commercial faults. :ok:

This is what most people around the world don't want to hear first thing in the morning:
i1ShTUVIzCI

PS: Once this thing starts waking up those nice people in Orange County, California, this plane can forget about using John Wayne Airport.

[con-pilot]

Since this is made by Airbus and not an American company, you can expect a repeat of Concorde and Boeing et al to prevent its entry to America.

A repeat of exactly what?

The Concorde was never prevented entry into the United States.

[KenV]

Since this is made by Airbus and not an American company....And now crass parochialism raises its ugly head.

you can expect a repeat of Concorde and Boeing et al to prevent its entry to America. Wait, what? Concorde was prevented entry into America? New York, New Jersey, Washington, Las Vegas, Lexington, Atlanta, Oshkosh, Pittsburgh, Dallas, Las Vegas, Honolulu, Colorado Springs, Waco, Miami, Seattle, Oakland, Boston, Fort Worth, etc etc etc are not in America? Who knew?

[MrMachfivepointfive]

Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US? — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3008709/)

[tdracer]

Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US? — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3008709/)

Except that post is wrong - Concorde service to Dulles started in May 1976, only a few months after Concorde entered commercial service. It was banned from JFK for a couple years (primarily due to noise concerns), but not from the US.
And the opposition to Concorde had nothing to do with Boeing - it was pretty much the same environmentalists that helped kill the Boeing 2707 that were against it serving JFK.:ugh:

[AR1]

This is what most people around the world don't want to hear first thing in the morning:

And most wont :ok:

[widgeon]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/21/aerion-supersonic-shuts-down-ending-plans-for-silent-business-jets.html

[BlankBox]

...poof...
https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/22/22449167/aerion-supersonic-jet-company-shuts-down-financial-air-travel

[Right Hand Thread]

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

:rolleyes: